Esta investigação tem o objetivo de comparar as duas primeiras gramáticas produzidas sobre o quechua no século XVI. A primeira, Grammatica o arte de la lengua general de los incas de los reynos del Peru, foi escrita pelo dominicano Domingo de Santo Tomás (1499-1570) e publicada em Valladolid, no ano de 1560. A segunda, Arte y vocabulario en la lengua general del Peru llamada quichua, y en la lengua española, de autoria anônima, surgiu das atividades do Terceiro Concílio Limenho (1582-1583) e foi publicada em Lima, no ano de 1586. A hipótese inicial deste trabalho é a de que ambos os textos configuram modelos distintos de descrição gramatical da língua-objeto, se levadas em consideração as especificidades históricas e políticas que contextualizam a produção e circulação das duas gramáticas examinadas. Do ponto de vista lingüístico, os textos gramaticais materializam continuidades e descontinuidades em relação ao repertório gramatical latino de base e em relação ao quadro universalista renascentista que situa tais produções. Procurou-se demonstrar que o tratamento dos metatermos gramaticais e as opções metodológicas verificadas em cada caso encaminham concepções distintas para o homem e a língua quechua e diferentes projetos de colonização para o Peru do século XVI. / This report has the objective to compare the two first grammar books produced by the quechua in the sixteenth century. The first one Grammatica o arte de la lengua general de los incas de los reynos del Peru, was written by the Dominican Domingo de Santo Tomás (1499-1570) and published in Valladolid, in the year of 1560. The second one, Arte y vocabulario en la lengua general del Peru llamada quichua, y en la lengua española, whose author is unknown, came up during the activities of the Third Concilio Limenho (1582-1583) and it was published in Lima, in 1586. The first hypothesis of this work is that both texts have distinct patterns of grammatical descriptions of the language-object, if taken into consideration the political and historical specificities which contextualize the production and the circulation of both examined grammars. From the linguistic point of view, the grammar texts materialize the continuity and the lack of continuity related both to the Latin grammar repertoire basis and in relation to the renaissentist universalistic scenery where such productions are. Trying to demonstrate that the grammatical metaterms and the methodological options verified in each case have different conceptions for the man and the language quechua and different projects of Colonization for Peru in the sixteenth century.

O objetivo geral deste Trabalho, contextualizado no campo da historiografia linguística, é proceder a um estudo sistemático sobre a emergência e o desenvolvimento da produção gramatical quéchua, em âmbito hispano-americano, entre os séculos XVI e XIX. Para tanto, buscamos examinar os domínios contextuais/institucionais, documentais e metodológicos que organizam as práticas linguísticas, nesse contexto, em perspectiva historiográfica. Tencionamos, ainda, de maneira específica, mapear a sistematização da metalinguagem gramatical relativa à categoria de caso nominal nos nomes substantivos, na língua andina, observando as continuidades e descontinuidades das perspectivas linguísticas que enquadram tal categoria no plano metodológico. Os autores considerados nesta Investigação são os seguintes: Santo Tomás (1560), Anônimo (1586), González Holguín (1607), Huerta (1616), Torres Rubio (1619), Roxo Mexia y Ocón (1648), Aguilar (1690), Melgar (1691), Nieto Polo (1753), Mossi (1857), Montaño (1864), Nodal (1872), Anchorena (1874), Mossi (1889), Paris (1892) e Grimm (1896). / The general objective of this report, contextualized in the field of linguistic historiography, is to carry out a systematic study about the emergence and development of Quechua grammar production, in Spanish-American context, between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries. To this end, we seek to examine the contextual / institutional, documentary and methodological areas that organize linguistic practices in historiographical perspective. We also intended, on a specific way, to map the systematization of grammatical metalanguage related to the category of nominal case at the nouns names, in the Andean language, observing the continuities and discontinuities of linguistic perspectives that fits in this category on the methodological plane. The authors considered in this research are the following: Santo Tomás (1560), Anônimo (1586), González Holguín (1607), Huerta (1616), Torres Rubio (1619), Roxo Mexia y Ocón (1648), Aguilar (1690), Melgar (1691), Nieto Polo (1753), Mossi (1857), Montaño (1864), Nodal (1872), Anchorena (1874), Mossi (1889), Paris (1892) and Grimm (1896).

Esta investigação tem o objetivo de comparar as duas primeiras gramáticas produzidas sobre o quechua no século XVI. A primeira, Grammatica o arte de la lengua general de los incas de los reynos del Peru, foi escrita pelo dominicano Domingo de Santo Tomás (1499-1570) e publicada em Valladolid, no ano de 1560. A segunda, Arte y vocabulario en la lengua general del Peru llamada quichua, y en la lengua española, de autoria anônima, surgiu das atividades do Terceiro Concílio Limenho (1582-1583) e foi publicada em Lima, no ano de 1586. A hipótese inicial deste trabalho é a de que ambos os textos configuram modelos distintos de descrição gramatical da língua-objeto, se levadas em consideração as especificidades históricas e políticas que contextualizam a produção e circulação das duas gramáticas examinadas. Do ponto de vista lingüístico, os textos gramaticais materializam continuidades e descontinuidades em relação ao repertório gramatical latino de base e em relação ao quadro universalista renascentista que situa tais produções. Procurou-se demonstrar que o tratamento dos metatermos gramaticais e as opções metodológicas verificadas em cada caso encaminham concepções distintas para o homem e a língua quechua e diferentes projetos de colonização para o Peru do século XVI. / This report has the objective to compare the two first grammar books produced by the quechua in the sixteenth century. The first one Grammatica o arte de la lengua general de los incas de los reynos del Peru, was written by the Dominican Domingo de Santo Tomás (1499-1570) and published in Valladolid, in the year of 1560. The second one, Arte y vocabulario en la lengua general del Peru llamada quichua, y en la lengua española, whose author is unknown, came up during the activities of the Third Concilio Limenho (1582-1583) and it was published in Lima, in 1586. The first hypothesis of this work is that both texts have distinct patterns of grammatical descriptions of the language-object, if taken into consideration the political and historical specificities which contextualize the production and the circulation of both examined grammars. From the linguistic point of view, the grammar texts materialize the continuity and the lack of continuity related both to the Latin grammar repertoire basis and in relation to the renaissentist universalistic scenery where such productions are. Trying to demonstrate that the grammatical metaterms and the methodological options verified in each case have different conceptions for the man and the language quechua and different projects of Colonization for Peru in the sixteenth century.

O objetivo geral deste Trabalho, contextualizado no campo da historiografia linguística, é proceder a um estudo sistemático sobre a emergência e o desenvolvimento da produção gramatical quéchua, em âmbito hispano-americano, entre os séculos XVI e XIX. Para tanto, buscamos examinar os domínios contextuais/institucionais, documentais e metodológicos que organizam as práticas linguísticas, nesse contexto, em perspectiva historiográfica. Tencionamos, ainda, de maneira específica, mapear a sistematização da metalinguagem gramatical relativa à categoria de caso nominal nos nomes substantivos, na língua andina, observando as continuidades e descontinuidades das perspectivas linguísticas que enquadram tal categoria no plano metodológico. Os autores considerados nesta Investigação são os seguintes: Santo Tomás (1560), Anônimo (1586), González Holguín (1607), Huerta (1616), Torres Rubio (1619), Roxo Mexia y Ocón (1648), Aguilar (1690), Melgar (1691), Nieto Polo (1753), Mossi (1857), Montaño (1864), Nodal (1872), Anchorena (1874), Mossi (1889), Paris (1892) e Grimm (1896). / The general objective of this report, contextualized in the field of linguistic historiography, is to carry out a systematic study about the emergence and development of Quechua grammar production, in Spanish-American context, between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries. To this end, we seek to examine the contextual / institutional, documentary and methodological areas that organize linguistic practices in historiographical perspective. We also intended, on a specific way, to map the systematization of grammatical metalanguage related to the category of nominal case at the nouns names, in the Andean language, observing the continuities and discontinuities of linguistic perspectives that fits in this category on the methodological plane. The authors considered in this research are the following: Santo Tomás (1560), Anônimo (1586), González Holguín (1607), Huerta (1616), Torres Rubio (1619), Roxo Mexia y Ocón (1648), Aguilar (1690), Melgar (1691), Nieto Polo (1753), Mossi (1857), Montaño (1864), Nodal (1872), Anchorena (1874), Mossi (1889), Paris (1892) and Grimm (1896).

Cette thèse propose de procéder à une histoire des parties du discours dans la grammaire germanophone entre le XVIIe et le début du XIXe siècle afin de mettre en évidence certaines spécificités de la description grammaticale allemande. En tant que structure pérenne de la réflexion linguistique occidentale, les parties du discours constituent, en effet, un lieu d’observation privilégié pour mettre en évidence les analogies et des divergences que peut présenter le discours grammatical germanophone vis-à-vis de celui d’autres traditions linguistiques. Certains traitements ou tendances descriptives particulières peuvent ainsi être dégagés et inscrits dans l’histoire de la grammaire allemande et plus largement européenne, ce qui invite alors à considérer plus attentivement les choix descriptifs ou les positions théoriques présidant à leur élaboration. Si la spécificité de l’idiome décrit intervient alors de manière déterminante sur le cadre descriptif, certaines initiatives de la deuxième moitié du XVIIIe siècle reposent aussi sur l’adoption d’une approche descriptive multicritérielle qui témoigne de l’élaboration d’une réflexion syntaxique sur les catégories grammaticales. Ces descriptions, qui présentent parfois des innovations remarquables dans l’histoire de la grammaire, peuvent ainsi être considérées comme participant, à plusieurs égards, du tournant syntaxique allemand qui se réalise dans le premier tiers du XIXe siècle et sont donc susceptibles d’en révéler certains des fondements. / This thesis aims to establish a history of the parts of speech in German grammar between the seventeenth and the early nineteenth centuries in order to highlight certain characteristics of the ways German grammar was described. A study of the parts of speech —which are a foundational feature of Western linguistic thought— provides an opportunity to highlight the ways German grammatical discourse is different from, or analogous to, other linguistic traditions. The descriptive trends and processes which emerge from this study can be positioned within the history of German grammar and more broadly within the history of other European grammars. This leads us to consider in more detail the descriptive choices and the theoretical viewpoints governing the development of these grammars. Although the specific features of the German language play a decisive role in the choice of a descriptive model, some initiatives in the second half of the eighteenth century adopt a multi-criterion approach to description, where grammatical categories are established through syntactic analysis. These multi-criterion descriptions, which sometimes present remarkable innovations in the history of grammar, can be seen as contributing to the change in German syntax that takes place in the first third of the nineteenth century. They therefore can reveal certain roots of this turning point in the history of German grammar.

La philosophie critique de Kant entretient un rapport ambigu à la question du langage. Bien que le système critique ne semble pas contenir de théorie du langage à proprement parler, les effets du registre transcendantal sur la façon d’appréhender le langage en philosophie semblent aussi massifs que souterrains. Pour envisager ce paradoxe, une hypothèse nouvelle est formulée : la philosophie kantienne serait l’expression paradoxale mais particulièrement paradigmatique d’une crise du langage de grande ampleur observable en Allemagne autour de 1800. Ce n’est qu’en replaçant le système critique dans ce contexte de crise que l’on pourra saisir sa portée pour traiter des problèmes du langage. Cela engage paradoxalement à saisir les effets positifs de la mise entre parenthèses du langage. Pour cela, la philosophie critique est d’abord située dans la crise épistémologique de grande ampleur qui accompagne autant un changement de paradigme des théories du langage (de la grammaire générale à la grammaire comparée), que la naissance d’une linguistique « scientifique ». Elle est ensuite située dans un faisceau de symptômes convergeant vers une crise du langage étudiée successivement à travers les exemples des crises poétique, métacritique et de la crise de la langue philosophique. Ces deux contextualisations permettent de poser à nouveaux frais les raisons systématiques qui expliquent un tel travail souterrain du langage par la philosophie critique. La lecture du système kantien comme modélisation topique de la subjectivité permet alors de rendre compte du statut nouveau qu’acquiert le langage et en particulier l’idée de langue naturelle dans le sillage de la philosophie transcendantale. / Kant’s critical philosophy maintains an ambiguous relationship with language. Even though no proper theory of language seems to be found in the critical system, the transcendental method of the Critique has both highly and unexpectedly influenced the philosophical approach to language. Such a paradox can be accounted for by the following hypothesis: Kantian philosophy is the expression of a major language crisis occurring in Germany at the turn of the 18th century, in a paradigmatic but paradoxical way. It is necessary to put the critical system in this context to understand the far-reaching consequences of setting aside language as a philosophical issue. This will lead to analyse the positive effects of Kant’s attitude on new way to deal with language issues. Three steps will be taken in this purpose. The first one examines the meaning of Kant’s critical philosophy in the light of an epistemic crisis mainly embodied by the theoretical shift from “general grammar” to “comparative grammar” and the emergence of scientific linguistics. The second step sheds light on the place of critical philosophy within the framework of a broader language crisis, which will be studied in three fields: 1) Poetry, 2) “Metacritique”, 3) Philosophical language. Systematic reasons for the strong influence of critical philosophy on language will emerge from this double contextualisation. Indeed, understanding the Kantian system as a topical modelling of subjectivity enables to account for the new status of language – and more specifically, for the concept of natural languages – in the wake of transcendental philosophy.

L’étude retrace l’histoire de la première nomenclature grammaticale officielle en France, depuis les premiers débats publics sur la nécessité d’une simplification et d’une unification terminologiques (à partir de janvier 1905) jusqu’à la promulgation des trois textes officiels que sont l’arrêté du 25 juillet 1910 (qui fixe la liste des termes grammaticaux dont la connaissance est exigible dans les examens et concours de l’enseignement primaire et de l’enseignement secondaire) ainsi que la circulaire du 28 septembre 1910 et la note du 21 mars 1911 (qui précisent la manière dont doit être mis en œuvre l’arrêté). L’étude soulève des enjeux politiques, théoriques et épistémologiques : la simplification et l’unification des nomenclatures grammaticales répond à la volonté de l’État d’améliorer la maitrise de la langue nationale et d’unifier son enseignement sur tout le territoire ; l’élaboration de la nomenclature révèle les problèmes posés par l’analyse des constructions verbales et de la phrase complexe au début du XXe siècle ; la réforme des nomenclatures met en lumière la tension entre un idéal terminologique et la réalité des pratiques. Ces enjeux croisent à tous moments des questionnements d’ordre didactique : sur la place d’un enseignement explicite de la grammaire dans l’enseignement de la langue, sur les relations que les savoirs scolaires entretiennent avec les savoirs savants ou encore sur les limitations imposées par ce qui peut être enseigné. / This study recounts the history of the first official grammatical nomenclature in France, since the first public debates on the necessity of a terminological simplification and unification (from January 1905) to the promulgation of the three official texts that are the decree of the 25th of July 1910 (that fixes the list of the grammatical terms that have to be known in the exams and examinations of both primary and secondary educations) as well as the circular of the 28th of September 1910 and the note of the 21st of March 1911 (that both explain how the decree has to be implemented). The study raises political, theoretical and epistemological issues: the simplification and unification of grammatical nomenclatures encounter the State’s will to improve the command of the national language and to unify education on the entire territory; the elaboration of the nomenclature reveals the problems caused by the analysis of verbal constructions and the complex sentence at the beginning of the 20th century; the reform of the nomenclatures highlights the tension between a terminological ideal and the reality of practices. These issues consistently intersect with didactic questions: on the place of an explicit teaching of grammar in the teaching of language, on the relations that school knowledge has with academic knowledge or furthermore on the limitations imposed by what can be taught.